A pamphlet brought out by DMSC reads: "Like other entertainment workers of the
world we use our brain, ideas, emotion and sex organs, in short, our entire
body and our mind to make people happy.
As entertainment workers, we seek governmental recognition and fulfilment of
our just professional demands". With this articulation, DMSC has expanded the
debate on sex work in India beyond the realm of 'right to work' and 'right to
form trade unions', to include 'right to pleasure'.
The claim deems 'right to pleasure' to be intrinsic to sex work. The buyer of
sexual services comes to a sex worker to seek pleasure; and the sex worker
entertains the customer not only through sexual acts, but also through dance,
music and modelling.
The demand - right to be called entertainment workers - offers a four-fold
potential. First, it expands the solidarity base of the sex workers' movement
by allying with other performers and artistes; second, it challenges the
negativity surrounding sex and sex workers; third, it counters the perception
of women as victims of sexual danger and brings forth a positive notion of
female sexuality; and fourth, it makes political the notion of 'pleasure' by
bringing it out into the public domain from the confines of a monogamous,
hetero-sexual marriage.
In a Marxist-feminist sense, when sex work is redefined as entertainment work
it takes on the responsibility of being a contributor to the production of
capital.
"After a hard day's work, when a person comes to a sex worker, he relaxes,
reduces his stress and gets enjoyment from having sex. He is rejuvenated, and
that adds to his productive abilities at work", points out Bharati Dey,
director, DMSC, and a sex worker.
A question repeatedly posed to sex workers is whether articulation of 'right to
pleasure' is legitimate when a majority of women are forced into it because of
extreme poverty.
Says Chaitali Pal, daughter of a sex worker who runs a sex workers' children's
organisation, under the aegis of DMSC, "It is untrue that sex workers are
always forced into the profession. And even if one accepts the fact that they
are, it is not any different from when a person is unable to get into the
profession of his or her choice due to lack of money or family pressures.
If i want to become a doctor or engineer, but don't have the money, or i am not
allowed by my family and i have to settle for being a clerk, will people say i
was forced and talk about rescuing and rehabilitating me?"
But this does not give the state an excuse to absolve itself from combating sex
trafficking, especially in minors, and creating enabling conditions for access
to health care and other social justice measures.
There is also a need to treat violence in the profession as a crime, instead of
criminalising the profession itself. The state can be expected to argue that if
a sex worker claims to derive plea-sure out of work, how can she ask the state
for protection of her rights.
Are sex workers who are not part of DMSC comfortable with this categorisation?
"If they say they are not entertainment workers, what is the work that sex
workers do? It is important to name the kind and nature of work one does to
demand rights from the state", says Smarajit Jana, chief advisor, DMSC.
While one may agree with this point of view, it is necessary to be cautious of
the slippery slope that 'entertainment worker' identity entails.
Will other categories of entertainment workers be prepared to ally with DMSC? A
case in point is the bar dancers of Mumbai who, when protesting against the ban
on dance bars, carried placards saying 'We are not sex workers', in an attempt
to gain legitimacy for their work.
So far, sex workers' organisations have argued for the repeal of the Immoral
Traffic (Prevention) Act, 1956. Will they abandon this approach? Despite all
these questions, there can be no denying the potential of the new DMSC line to
bring sex work back into the realm of popular politics.
The writers Debolina Dutta & Oishik Sircar are human rights lawyers.
